Sanford Speaks Out is the latest blog sensation written, edited and produced by Sanford D. Horn, a writer and educator. Sanford will write about issues of the day covering a myriad subjects: politics, education, culture, sports, religion and even food.

Monday, January 28, 2013

This is no longer the United States of America as it was
left to us by the Founding Fathers. As will be demonstrated this is not to be
some paranoid rant and screed.

We have a government that has violated the Second
Amendment to the Constitution by going on a gun banning rampage which will lead
to the slippery slope of firearm confiscation.

Sadly the American people are complicit in this violation
by believing the government has their best interest at heart and are able to
protect and defend them from all enemies foreign and domestic. This simply is
not true.

Why is it perfectly permissible for Barack Obama’s
children to be protected by armed security, but the rest of the nation’s
children are subject to attending school in gun free zones and at the mercy of
murderers? Every school should be protected by trained, armed guards. Are
students less important than the banks and jewelry stores that have armed
security on the premises?

It should not be up to the government to limit how one
protects oneself or their family or property. If a reader chooses not to own a
firearm, that is his or her business. If people choose to own a gun or guns,
that is also his or her business as far as the Second Amendment to the
Constitution allows.

But, as more and more schools decide that civics, social
studies, history, and government are less and less important, a growing
ignorant society will kowtow to an increasingly tyrannical government that
decides the Constitution is mere paper and not the guiding law and principles
of a nation founded as a democratic-republic, but something to be sloughed off
and ignored.

And while the ability to defend oneself, one’s family,
and one’s property is severely waning, the danger to the American people is
rising exponentially with the soon to be granted amnesty to 12-20 million illegal
aliens, thanks to a bi-partisan effort in the US Senate and so-called
Comprehensive Immigration Reform. (Make no mistake, the 11 million illegals
figure being trotted out by the Senate and the so-called mainstream media is
pure folly and fiction.)

By late spring, early summer, according to Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-NY), an immigration bill will be ready for Obama’s signature granting
lawbreakers amnesty, a path to citizenship. and thus a reward for their illegal
behavior.

This cannot be stressed more vociferously and stringently
enough: illegals are in the United States because they broke the law and it
matters not what other parts of this legislation are presented, any bill
granting even one illegal amnesty, a path to citizenship, ever, should be voted
down. To support such legislation will unleash a torrent of support to replace
any House or Senate member who betrays the American people – regardless of
political affiliation.

Even one carrot is too many when the sticks clearly have
not been employed. For me to criticize former President Ronald Reagan, one of my
three political heroes, is blasphemous at best. Yet, under Reagan in 1986, he
granted amnesty to three million illegals without any stopgaps to secure the
borders or prevent the floodgates from opening that ultimately left the US in
its current predicament.

Ironically, and mostly hypocritically Sen. John McCain (RINO-AZ)
said “We are a nation of laws and immigrants.” It is pure hypocrisy to grant
any illegal amnesty and a path to citizenship. If the United States is indeed a
nation of laws, immigration laws should be enforced and all illegals deported
to their country of origin with the caveat that they not be allowed to return unless
in a legal manner.

A database should be established identifying and monitoring
the movements and activities of all illegals. For those who suggest they will
be treated like criminals, that’s correct. Yes, this is a hard line on the
issue of illegal immigration, while supporting legal immigration of those
future residents demonstrating they are deserving of the label American citizen.

The proposed legislation calls for first securing the
borders, said Schumer. Fine – pass that as a separate bill, and then let’s talk
about the illegals who have invaded the borders of the US. Too often securing
the border has merely been given lip service in an effort to placate the GOP,
who now, by participating in this bipartisan dog and pony show are complicit in
surrendering the country to the lawless and those who would still prefer the Mexican
flag to Old Glory as roughly 80 percent of the illegals in this country have
slithered from south of the border.

That McCain and his fellow Arizonan, freshman Sen. Jeff
Flake (R), a solid fiscal conservative while in the House, would be two of the
eight senators on this committee is disturbing knowing the havoc being wrecked
on the border by home invaders and drug smugglers.

With illegals already privy to seats in public school
classrooms, free lunches and breakfasts for students, food stamps, free medical
care and hospitalization all at taxpayer expense, citizenship will only force
them to pay for such privileges. They must be disincentivized from coming in
the first place and urged to self-deport for those already here by granting
them nothing.

Sure, the committee of eight said that illegals would be
forced to pay fines, back taxes, learn English, and move to the back of the
line before being considered for citizenship, the same committee already
included a caveat for workers being able to continue working in the US legally
while going through the process.

Back taxes? Based upon what paperwork? Are illegals being
issued W-2 forms? If so, under what Social Security number? Sounds like fraud.
How will such penalties be assessed?

Learn English? To whose satisfaction? Will there be a
test like a literacy test so many people objected to during the Jim Crow era? Make
no mistake, learning English is a great idea, as all government documents
should be printed in English and English only. It should be a prerequisite for
voting and graduating from any school in this country.

Regardless of what penalties are attached to such
legislation, anything that puts any illegal alien on a path to American
citizenship is simply a reward for being a scofflaw and miscreant. Even those
students brought to the United States too young to object or remain in their
home country should not be granted carte blanche to citizenship without penalty
to the parents who brought them here.

Any legislation MUST include a modification of the 14th
Amendment that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil –
even the child of an illegal alien. Once again, this rewards illegal behavior
by invading the United States in order to give birth in this country for the purposes
of making them citizens. This was not the purpose of that amendment – ratified in
1868 dedicated to ensuring citizenship for former slaves.

Schumer wants illegals to not fear deportation if they
emerge from the shadows. It should be quite the contrary – illegals should fear
deportation, as they have broken the law of the country they supposedly wish to
join.

Becoming an American citizen is not about financial gain,
living in a non-English speaking enclave, and raising the flag of Mexico or
some other nation of ones origin. In fact, it should be just the opposite.
Taking the oath of citizenship should be done with pride in one’s new, chosen
country – in English, ready to defend the United States and remain fiercely
loyal to their adopted nation.

And where in this proposed legislation is there a demand
for Mexico’s cooperation on the border. That country demonstrates its own hypocrisy
by having a sieve for a northern border, yet, its southern border with Guatemala
is tight as a drum with harsh penalties for those who breech it. There is no
disincentive for Mexico to keep all its people at bay because those who invade
the United States no longer are Mexico’s financial problem.

Brit Hume of Fox News summed it contritely, saying, “Has
the Republican Party softened on immigration? You bet.” McCain, a RINO at best
is a prime example, as is Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), also not a true conservative.
On the other hand, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a conservative and Hispanic who has
eyes on the White House, is also a part of this committee and clearly this is an
attempt to curry favor with the ever growing Hispanic voting population who cast
their ballots roughly 70-30 for Obama in 2012.

Hispanic-Americans should not be supportive of such
legislation. Many Hispanics immigrated to the United States and did so the
legal way, which in some cases took longer than it may for an illegal to be
placed on a pathway to citizenship under this faulty legislation. The Hispanics
who legally obtained citizenship should be insulted and offended that
lawbreakers would be given advantages not afforded to those who followed the
rule of law.

In addition to the aforementioned senators, the committee
also includes Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez
(D-NJ) – each representing states with large Hispanic populations.

While Comprehensive Immigration Reform clearly leans left
and Republicans who support it will benefit at the ballot box, it is the
responsibility of House and Senate members alike, regardless of party to do
what is right versus what is politically expedient.

Visit www.house.gov
and www.senate.gov, locate and contact your
representatives to sternly and politely voice objection to Comprehensive Immigration
Reform. It is vital that this legislation not become law and we the people must
play a role in preventing its passage. It is long overdue for this country to behave
like the United States once again before it is unrecognizable and too late for
its salvation.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it…. Studying history is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes.” –
George Santayana (1863-1952)

DC Ponders Dropping Social Studies

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 23, 2013

Ignorance isn’t bliss – it’s downright stupid and
dangerous. It’s bad enough we have a Congress and administration unfamiliar
with the Constitution of the United States, but to perpetuate such ignorance by
eliminating civics, government, and social studies in the DC school system is
irresponsible at best if not criminal.

This is not some sickening plotline of a Dumb and Dumber remake. Worse, this is a
moronic plot dreamed up by vacuous imbeciles within the DC school system to
combat their already distressing lowest in the nation graduation rate of 59
percent. (www.pbs.org)

Those supporting such a horrific notion have raised the
white flag in perpetuity and guaranteed future generations a return to slavery
and a loss of the American dream as well as the American way of life in a
democratic-republic.

In the shadow of the Capitol Building, the White House,
the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial – for whom is honored not just
the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third president of the
United States, but also the founder of the University of Virginia – and the
Lincoln Memorial; in the shadow of the splendor of what is the nation’s capital
and the seat of the federal government, sits in virtual ashes, the public
school system of the District of Columbia.

Include in that wreckage, the dozens of charter schools –
at two of which I taught, and can testify the dire need for social studies,
government, geography, and civics. At a bare minimum high school curriculum
must include a year of world history, two years of American history, and a year
of civics/government. The three years of history should also include geography.
At the lower grades, introductory civics, social studies, and maps and map
reading should be mandatory.

To abandon the social studies, et al, is to surrender to
those who would replace our democratic-republican institutions with socialism
and in a generation all will have been lost and nothing will have been
salvaged.

A revolution was waged to give the American people its
freedom from the tyrannical government of King George III. When asked in 1787
following the Constitutional Convention what kind of government the new country
was given, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A republic… if you can keep it.”

That war all but had to be refought two generations later
during the War of 1812 – a war barely glossed over in textbooks and classrooms
alike.

Make no mistake, this pandemic of dumbing down our
curriculum and ultimately our society as a whole, as we fall farther and
farther behind foreign countries with fewer resources is not limited to our
nation’s capital. Cities large and small, rich and poor, rural and urban, are
equally susceptible to the degradation of the educational system.

While this is not the place to lay blame, teachers’
unions, administrators, and quite frankly anyone whose positions are weakened
by poor student performance, are clearly at the top of the list of those
responsible for making such an appalling suggestion to downgrade the American
curriculum. For while it may be DC today, it could very well be Kansas City,
with its 40 percent graduation rate, tomorrow, or Chicago, with its 60 percent
graduation rate, the day after, or any other fledgling city such as Cleveland, at
34 percent, Detroit, at 25 percent, or Indianapolis, at 34 percent.

And it is not just the loss of social studies et al,
which I teach, that is of concern, it is the slippery slope that if this
subject could be abandoned in the guise of the interest of improving graduation
rates, why not eliminate chemistry, physics, biology, algebra, geometry,
English, and all challenging subjects.

The school systems are enablers of ignorance under the
mistaken notion that we must continue to coddle students, reward them for
simply showing up, and protecting their precious self-esteems when none of the
above will vaunt them into college, a good productive job in the workforce, or
grant them the ability to compete on a global level.

Just the opposite. The less children learn the less they
will earn as adults and the more deeply entrenched and dependent upon
government they will become. This is already an entitlement society, but the
continuing dumbing down of the curriculum will destroy any balance between the
ability to provide for those in dire need versus those who simply refuse to
provide for themselves.

Parents ought to be clamoring at the schoolhouse doors demanding more discipline, more
challenging curriculum – including social studies, to enable their children to
remain free in a society that is theirs to rule in the next generation, if they
are able.

Do we really want to turn out so-called graduates who
know nothing of the history of their country? What is their incentive to join
the military and defend this nation and its principles if young people do not
know the history or its founding principles? Can we afford to have a nation so
ignorant of its rights that it eventually becomes mired in a police state?

Are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mere
paper to be ignored that we will ultimately surrender our rights and freedoms
as archaic, superficial, and meaningless? The slippery slope there, is to
abandon the right to vote and choose our own government, which is what an
ignorant society will do – it is easier to let someone else do the thinking and
make the challenging decisions.

As it is voter turnout is barely above 50 percent in a
presidential election year and infinitely lower in other years. Fewer and fewer
people are already making those decisions for those who find it to difficult or
meaningless to exercise their rights. How much attention were those folks
paying in social studies, civics, or history class?

Eliminating social studies et al, from the curriculum
will not only relegate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of
the United States to the dustbin of history, but it will also relegate the
United States to third world status.

I don’t wish to become Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. Do
you?

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one
generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be
fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once
to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it
again.” – Ronald Reagan, January 5, 1967, from his first inaugural speech as
governor of California

It is far easier to conquer an ignorant people unarmed
and bereft of facts and knowledge than it is to conquer a learned society.

Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He taught American History,
World History, and Geography at two charter schools in Washington, DC prior to
moving to Indiana.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Shortly upon his second coronation, King Barack, Queen Michelle
and a band of Congressional minions adjourned to Statuary Hall where they dined
on lobster, clam chowder sauce, bison, apple pie a la mode and other delights.*

I mentioned this to an ultra-liberal friend of mine who
was basking in the glory of the day, January 21, who simply responded, “They’re
entitled.” Hmm. That seems to sum up the entire attitude of this administration
and all who fawn in its wake.

My point was not in the largesse of the meal. I couldn’t
care less what the Obamas and members of Congress eat – so long as I am not
paying for it, which, of course, on that day I, along with the rest of you were
footing the bill. My point is, the over 3,000 calorie gastronomical feast on
which they gorged demonstrates the continued hypocrisy of this administration,
specifically Queen Michelle who has been hell bent on mandating a national diet
for the rank and file – obese or not.

And after Mrs. Obama ordered us to eat our peas, there
was no such legume on the inaugural luncheon menu.

As with so many aspects of this administration, it’s do
as we say, not as we do. This edict can be applied to the Obama philosophy on
guns.

While it is perfectly acceptable, and it is, for Obama’s
daughters to be protected by armed guards, he does not want the rest of
America’s children to enjoy the same security. Since the horrors of Sandy Hook in
December there has been a cacophony calling for increased gun control as a
knee-jerk reaction from the left.

Limiting the rights, as provided by the Second Amendment
of the United States Constitution, will only put innocent people in grave
danger, not make them safer.

“Why don’t we stop the bad guy from getting the gun in
the first place,” declared Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), showing his abject
naïveté. Is Schumer serious? Additional gun laws will stop criminals? Welcome
to the Land of Oz, Senator.

The more people are armed, the less likely they will
become victims.

On January 16 Obama signed 23 Executive Orders pertaining
to guns and gun ownership bypassing Congress. I seem to recall a war for
independence being fought (1775-83) to rid ourselves of the despotic and tyrannical
rule of a monarch, King George III.

Why not enforce the hundreds, if not thousands of gun
laws already on the books both federally as well as within the 50 states? No,
that would be too practical and not feed the paranoia of the left if “all” the
government did was work within the system already in place. Instead, the
federal government needs to put on a show – replete with Obama photos
supposedly skeet shooting. I’d sooner trust former VP Dick Cheney with a gun
than Obama.

Arm schools at the front doors as we arm banks protecting
our most important assets – our children, as we do our monetary assets. Protect
the children of Mr. and Mrs. Main Street as we do Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

Bottom line, stripping away the Second Amendment to the Constitution
one rifle, pistol, or handgun at a time will eventually ensure that all other
amendments are stripped away, ending the democratic-republic as we once knew
it.

Monday, January 14, 2013

With apologies to the late Waylon Jennings, “Mammas don’t
let your babies grow up to” have Jack Lew’s signature. The Secretary of State
designate has a signature resembling that of the icing on a Hostess® cupcake –
all swirl and no substance – thus strengthening the case to mandate cursive
writing in all elementary schools.

Within two days of each other, The Indianapolis Star printed a news article and an editorial
juxtaposing one another on the issue of keeping cursive writing a part of the
educational agenda in the Hoosier State.

Scott Elliott’s article “In favor of the written word,”
(01/09/13) conveys the desire of State Senator Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg)
requiring cursive writing be returned to the Indiana curriculum. Leising filed
legislation both in 2012 and will do so again in the upcoming legislative
session in the wake of the State Department of Education’s decision to no
longer require the teaching of cursive writing in 2011.

According to the Star,
the State Senate overwhelmingly supported Leising’s bill by a vote of 45-5. The
bill never reached the House floor, however. Clearly not a partisan issue, as
the Senate vote depicts, Leising did not, however, have the support of House
Education Committee Chairman Bob Behning, a fellow Republican from
Indianapolis. Behning believed then and still does as of this week, that it is
“inappropriate” for curriculum to be mandated by the legislature.

And apparently newly installed State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Glenda Ritz (D) is not a supporter of the Leising bill
either, according to her spokesman, David Galvin. “Cursive should be under the
purview of the State Board of Education,” Galvin said.

Since the elimination of the cursive writing requirement,
such a decision to teach or not to teach the skill has been left to individual
schools to determine. This clearly is short sighted as cursive writing is a needed
skill for people’s signatures, the ability to read antiquated documents, and
simply convey information when a computer or laptop is not available.

So short sighted that in Matthew Tully’s commentary “Put
your pencils down and pay attention,” (01/11/13) he took, albeit tongue in
cheek, pot shots at cursive writing in a manner that was pedantic, myopic, and
patronizing.

Should we really return to the days of Jim Crow when
people who did not know how to sign their own names simply made their mark with
an “X”? That would be a tragedy.

While Tully said he could “go either way” on the actual
teaching of cursive writing, he opposes a mandate at the legislative level.
But, in doing so, he mocks potential letter writers suggesting critics would
contact him via pen and paper as opposed to “one of those fancy computer
gizmos.” Well, LOL, Mr. Tully as is oft-posted on-line, as I complete this
column and post it to my blog.

This issue first came to my attention in 2011 after the
decision by the I-DOE and from my two nieces living in Westfield, one who had
already learned cursive writing and one who would not, but wanted to. I wrote a
column then, “Keeping Cursive is (Write) Right” (07/11/11) that was ignored by
the Current in Westfield, but can be
found on my blog.

Mandating the teaching of cursive writing throughout the
state of Indiana via legislative edict ensures a level of consistency.
Keyboarding can and should still be taught, but side by side with cursive
writing.

“Having taught middle and high school, handwriting ranges
from the creative to the illegible and students with poor handwriting skills
tend to get frustrated and not write enough, thus making the handwriting even
more difficult to interpret by teachers.

Not all applications can be filled out on-line. Paperwork
in doctor’s offices, checks and thank you notes still require handwriting.
Neatness ensures accuracy, while the alternative could be costly financially or
even medically.” (“Keeping Cursive…”)

Without sounding overly paranoid, when our antiquated
power grid fails, and it will, pen and paper will once again rule the day.
When, as a writer, I have a middle of the night epiphany, I reach for my pad
and pen, not laptop at my bedside.

There’s even a cursive font on the computer, Tully is
familiar with it as he used it in his column. More knowledge and abilities are
good things, not things to shun and mock. Some traditions just shouldn’t be
abandoned.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The infamous and controversial Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (1973), contrary to popular
belief was not about abortion, but instead the broader right of privacy.

As stated in a summary of the landmark case, Justice Harry
Blackmun, a Richard Nixon high court appointee in 1970 who wrote the Roe decision, answered a question
regarding privacy. Blackmun stated that “the Due Process Clause” of the 14th
Amendment, “protects the right to privacy…” (http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html)

Furthermore, with the 14th Amendment behind
them, gun owners, whose names and addresses were unceremoniously splashed
across the pages of the Journal News
in New York under the guise of protecting the community and using FOIA (Freedom
of Information Act) as its shield, had their privacy violated.

Section
One of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states,
in part, that “No state shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of the law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Liberals and those who would restrict the activities of
their fellow Americans enjoy invoking Roe
whenever it suits their needs – defending the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands of fetuses/lives every year, but objecting to the right of honest,
law abiding Americans to defend their families, homes, and property according
to the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The Due Process Clause protects people’s privacy –
whether the privacy to murder their unborn child or the privacy to keep and
bear arms without having their names and addresses made public, potentially
putting them in harm’s way. And for that matter, placing those who choose not
to own a firearm in harm’s way.

Criminals can pick up a copy of the Journal News and decide to carjack, burglarize, kidnap, rape, rob,
or murder a non-gun owner more easily than one who is duly armed.

For those who would curtail gun ownership in the United
States, do they think people will simply surrender their Constitutional right
to bear arms and turn in their pistols, revolvers, and rifles? Those people are
delusional at best and living in fantasy land if they believe an unarmed
society will make them safer. Just the opposite; criminals will be able to
procure firearms, and sadly, often times, have better fire power than the law
enforcement entrusted with keeping the streets and society safe.

But the police cannot be everywhere, and again, those who
would disarm law abiding citizens and think that waiting for police when faced
with a home invasion at gunpoint will keep them from getting slaughtered, are
equally as delusional.

Take the recent case of the Georgia gun owner who
protected her family by shooting an intruder after spiriting away her children
to another part of the home. When discovered, the home owner was prepared and
saved six lives.

Liberals are always quick to defend the rights of
criminals to ensure their due process. What about the due process of the gun
owner to not be deprived of his or her life, liberty, or property?

The Journal News,
under the auspices of its president and publisher Janet Hasson, took it upon
herself to violate the privacy rights of thousands of lawful gun owners in her
community, claiming such information was available to the public under FOIA. This
is the same liberal publication that recently endorsed 36 Democrats for 36
elections.

Under the same FOIA protection, Hasson’s readers can
learn and print the purchase price of her home, list whether or not she is a
recipient of welfare and/or food stamps, her magazine subscriptions, her movie
rentals, and whether or not she is a convicted child molester – all under the
guise of the community’s right to know.

Quite frankly, knowing who receives welfare and food
stamps should be public information, after all, we the people are paying for
those so-called entitlements. And, what parents or grandparents wouldn’t want
to be informed as to the criminal nature of their neighbors? Let’s see Hasson
publish the list of convicted pedophiles and sex offenders in her newspaper
alongside the names of those on public assistance.

Printing the names of gun owners and their addresses puts
law enforcement agents at risk. Readers of Hasson’s paper in the local jails
have parroted back to their jailers addresses that appeared in print. Local
judges are at risk. Residents who have moved due to harassment are at risk.
Testifying witnesses are at risk. Stalker victims are at risk.

This is a bell than cannot be unrung. A message should be
sent to the purveyors of such material by readers who chose to cancel their
subscriptions; from advertisers who chose to advertise elsewhere, or from
readers who opt to take their business from advertisers who remain in the paper
to those who won’t appear there.

The brazenness of people like Hasson will only encourage
other publications to follow her lead in their communities. What next? Will
those gun owners whose names are in print exact their revenge by posting
personal, yet publicly attained, information about the newspaper’s owner and/or
publisher?

Contact Hasson at the Journal News Media Group, owned by
Gannett, Inc. at 914-694-5204 or on-line at jhasson@lohud.com.

I believe in a free press – it is one of the cornerstones
of American society. But I also believe in the privacy of the individual and to
not have that privacy violated.

Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is a multi-time winner of the
Virginia Press Association Award.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Democratic legislators in Indiana who walked of the job
in both 2011 and 2012 now suing to recoup their lost remuneration to fines
should have their case tossed out of court by Chief Justice Brent Dickson on
account of its frivolous nature.

Not only should the Democrats’ pay be forfeited and the
fines stand, but they should also face recall and/or impeachment for
dereliction of duty and failure to represent their constituents.

This is not about picking on the Democrats. The same
treatment would befit Republicans who would behave in the same truculent and
irresponsible manner as the Democrats. This is about the principle of elections
having consequences. At present and in the years in question above, the
Republican Party holds a majority. It is up to the Democrats to play the cards
they are dealt, stay on the job, and fight for their stances on the issues
before the legislature.

Walking off the job is the same as a strike. Strikers are
not paid nor should the recalcitrant Democrats who, like a petulant
six-year-old decided to take their ball and go home, or more importantly, flee
the jurisdiction to the Land of Lincoln.

According to a Marion County judge “the House had the
power to impose the fines, it could not ignore state law by seizing pay without
due process.” (“Democrats trying to regain pay docked after walkout,” The Indianapolis Star 01/04/13)

Fair enough; give the Democrats their due process. Did
they walk off the job? Yes. Does the House have the power to fine them? Yes.
Case dismissed; fines stand. Next time, stay put and do your jobs. Otherwise
come election day, the rank and file will find other, more responsible citizens
to do them.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

While Jack Frost may be nipping at our tuchuses and
pitchers and catchers don’t report for duty for about six weeks, there is some
important baseball business needing immediate attention – the upcoming vote on
who will earn entry into the Hall of Fame.

“Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability,
integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which
the player played.” (http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa) This is the standard by
which the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) is to do their jobs
if they have not already cast their ballots for the Class of 2013.

The key words here are character and integrity – neither of which were
exhibited by the likes of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Rafael
Palmeiro, or Sammy Sosa, each accused of using steroids during their playing
careers. Whether for one season or an extended period of time, these players’
bad behavior should not be rewarded. They only way they should be allowed into
Cooperstown is with a paid ticket for admission.

Yet one such BBWAA voter, Bruce Jenkins, a columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle, is willing to
overlook the importance of character and integrity. “Whether it was gambling,
scuffing the baseballs, corking bats, amphetamines or steroids, players have
been cheating like crazy forever.”

That shoddy excuse for Jenkins to boast about his plan to vote for Bonds,
Clemens, and Sosa should be enough to be disqualified as a voting member of the
BBWAA. Justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior is disingenuous at best.
Did he vote for McGwire in any of his six previous ballot appearances or
Palmeiro’s two priors?

The “steroid era” of baseball is more of a black mark than the Black Sox
scandal of 1919 that temporarily stained the game and gave the game a
commissioner. Steroids have tainted baseball from the top down – from the
majors to high school where players are under such pressure to perform,
maintain a level of performance, and procure high dollar contracts.

While the aforementioned accused players managed to escape a 2005
Congressional hearing not determining their steroid usage, the overwhelming
majority of people were not so easily duped. Fooling Congress, after all, can
be attained in one’s sleep. But it was clear that the leaps and bounds in the
performances of Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa were nothing short of manufactured.

And while convicting Bonds, Clemens and Sosa in the court of public opinion
is not how the system of American jurisprudence operates in these United
States, those retired players are not facing judge and jury, but instead the
600-plus members of the BBWAA for whom the words character and integrity loom
large.

Those words, character and integrity, have meaning and should be upheld
while casting votes in favor of some of the past generation’s great players on
the field, and honorable men off the field.

Were I casting some of the precious votes to determine the Class of 2013
inductees into the Baseball Hall of Fame, four former stars would appear on my
ballot.

Craig Biggio spent the entirety of his 20 years in the majors with the
Houston Astros. The seven time all-star also earned four Gold Gloves and five
Silver Sluggers. Biggio managed to appear in many offensive leadership
categories while playing for a typically sluggish Astros team. The former
second baseman should be a first ballot entrant.

Jack Morris pitched for 14 of his 18 major league seasons with the Detroit
Tigers and could soak up the innings as though he had a rubber arm, tossing 175
complete games. Morris pitched in three World Series, was a three-time 20-plus
game winner, including winning 21 at age 37. The five-time all-star also
pitched for the Twins, Blue Jays, and Indians. Having pitched from 1977-94,
Morris is in his 14th year of eligibility, inching closer each year
to Cooperstown.

Because Mike Piazza played nearly eight of his 16-year career with the
Mets, naturally he a favorite. However, the 12-time all-star cracked 427 home
runs, batted .308 and earned 10 Silver Slugger awards all while catching 1629
games – top flight numbers regardless of what team he played for. Piazza, the
1993 Rookie of the Year, spent the first six-plus years with the Dodgers, a
year each with the Padres and A’s as well as five minutes with the Marlins.
Piazza’s place in Cooperstown is all but bronzed.

Last but not least on my ballot would be Curt Schilling, bloody sock and
all. The six-time all-star pitched 20 seasons in the big leagues – three with
the Orioles, one with the Astros, eight-plus with the Phillies, three-plus with
the Diamondbacks, then calling it a career with the Red Sox. Schilling tossed
83 complete games, appeared in three World Series, and had three 20-plus win
seasons within a four year span at ages 36, 38, and 39. Schilling should have
his ticket stamped this summer.

While it is important to not sully the Baseball Hall of Fame with the likes
of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa, the focus should be on the
greats who will be enshrined this July and how they will continue to be the
true ambassadors to the community as so many before them have been.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and
educator living in Westfield, IN. He has been a Patron-level member of the
Baseball Hall of Fame since 2007.